Telangana High Court
Union Of India vs Geeta Devi , Gita Devi And 2 Others on 9 June, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.965 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 aggrieved by the Judgment dated 02.07.2019 in OA II (U) No.279 of 2016 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, wherein the claim petition filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- for the death of F. Khetan Sing @ Khet Sing @ Khetaram @ Khetram, who has fallen from the running train and died.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2016 afternoon the deceased has purchased II class train journey ticket bearing No. APA 08927805 from Warangal to Khammam and boarded train No. 18646 Hyderabad - Howrah East Coast Express and informed the same to his wife. When the train halted at Khammam Railway Station, many passengers got down from the train with heavy luggage and when the deceased came to the door of the compartment to alight, train suddenly started moving, as such he was standing near the train to get down from the train on the next halt. In the meantime the deceased slipped and fell down accidently from the running 2 train at KM 485/12-14, just after Khammam Railway Station i.e., in between Khammam and Pandilapalli Railway Stations. The body of the deceased was dragged by the train, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the wife and sons of the deceased have filed application seeking compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- against the respondent.
3. The respondent filed written statement denying the averments and stated that there were no eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, it cannot be stated that under what circumstances the incident has happened and there was no intimation to guard, driver and based on the message by B. Prem Kumar, who is duty key man, that one unknown body was lying side of the down line tract in between Khammam and Pandillapalli Railway Stations, FIR was registered. It is further contended that the incident has happened beyond destination station i.e., Khammam, as such ticket has no evidentiary value.
4. Before the Tribunal, AW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the applicants. Ex.A1 is the original journey train ticket, Exs.A2 to A4 are the attested copies of FIR, Inquest and Postmortem report. Ex.A5 is the death certificate of the deceased. Exs.A6 to A10 are the Aadhar 3 Cards, birth certificate and ration card of the applicants. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined. However, Ex.R1 Divisional Railway Manager's Report was marked.
5. After hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal allowed the application in part by awarding a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
6. Heard both sides and perused the entire record.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased has travelled beyond destination station i.e., Khammam, as such Ex.A1 ticket has no evidentiary value and thereby the deceased was not a bonafide passengers from Khammam Railway Station to Pandilapalli Railway Station but the Tribunal without considering the same, has awarded compensation and hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - applicant has argued that there is ample evidence on record to substantiate that the deceased Khetan Singh was a bonafide passenger of train No. 18646 Hyderabad - Howrah East Coast Express and he died in 4 an untoward incident due to accidental fall from the said train between Khammam and Pandilapalli Railway Station.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the deceased was bonafide passenger of Train No. 18646 Hyderabad -
Howrah East Coast Express travelling from Warangal to Khamma on 30.06.2016 and thereby the applicants are entitled for compensation?"
9. Admittedly, the death of the deceased occurred due to accidental fall from the train No. 18646 Hyderabad - Howrah East Coast Express, which is travelling from Warangal to Khammam on the date of the accident. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the train ticket was purchased by the deceased to travel from Warangal to Khammam and the deceased was supposed to get down at Khammam Railway Station, however, the attempt of the deceased to get down from the said train could not be successful, as many passengers got down from the said train with heavy luggage and as a result the train moved. Thereby the deceased could not get down from the train at Khammam Railway Station and that prompted the deceased to continue in the same train to the next halt. While the deceased stayed near the door of the compartment to get down the train 5 at the next halt, the deceased fell down from the moving train accidentally, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
10. Now the issue to be resolved is whether the deceased can be held to be a bonafide passenger having been travelled beyond destination station i.e., Khammam. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of this Court in A. Laxmi @ Laxmi @ Reddymalla Renuka and others v. Union of India1, wherein this Court by placing reliance on B. Narayana v. Union of India2, held as follows:
"At the most, the passengers, who travelled beyond their destination in a train, would be liable to pay excess fare or charge for the over travelled distance. But merely on the ground that a person travelled beyond his destination in a train, it cannot be held that he is not a bonafide passenger without a proper pass or ticket. The mere fact that a passenger had over-travelled beyond the destination does not necessarily warrant a finding that he was not a bonafide passenger, though such person is liable to pay proper or excess fare to the Railways."1
CMA No.682 of 2016 decided on 26.10.2018 2 CMA No.20 of 2003 decided on 22.07.2010 6
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon an authority in Sunitha C. and others v. Union of India3 the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam held as follows:
"The said rule has also been relied on by the High Court of Bombay in Vaishali Bhalerao v.
Union of India. The conclusion, which is inescapable on a reading of Sections 55, 123, 124, 124-A and 138 of the Railways Act, 1989 and the provisions of the manual is that an unintentional overriding of the journey for which a ticket is purchased is an accident which can be corrected by payment of fine or purchase of a ticket back to the original destination."
12. In view of the principle laid down in the above citations, it is evident that merely because the passenger over-travelled the destination, it cannot be said that the said passenger is not a bonafide passenger. Thereby, the applicants being the legal representatives of deceased, are entitled for compensation.
13. In view of the above discussion, learned counsel for the appellant failed to substantiate any of the grounds to succeed in the present appeal and thereby this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
3 2017 ACJ 878 7
14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has prayed to pass appropriate direction, so that the first applicant can withdraw entire share awarded by the Tribunal to her. Since the time frame fixed by the learned Tribunal to deposit the share of the first applicant No.1 in a nationalized bank for a period of two years has already been lapsed, this Court is inclined to permit the first applicant i.e., first respondent herein to withdraw entire compensation amount awarded to her.
15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 09.06.2023 AS 8 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.965 OF 2019 Dated: 09.06.2023 AS